Efrain Gonzalez-Roman v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60075 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 07/28/2017 [16-60075]

Download PDF
Case: 16-60075 Document: 00514021752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60075 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED June 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk EFRAIN GONZALEZ-ROMAN, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089 848 326 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Efrain Gonzalez-Roman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He asserts that the BIA erred in determining that he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, i.e., deportees with Mexican ancestry but who were born in, or are Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-60075 Document: 00514021752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 No. 16-60075 associated with, the United States because they are not fluent in Spanish and are relatively unfamiliar with Mexican society. Gonzalez-Roman fails to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s determination that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT and, therefore, he has abandoned any related claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions regarding GonzalezRoman’s eligibility for relief, both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions are reviewable. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, Gonzalez-Roman must demonstrate that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. Id. at 537. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Gonzalez-Roman did not establish that he was a member of a cognizable particular social group. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2012); Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Specifically, Gonzalez-Roman fails to define membership in the proposed group with sufficient exactness to limit its membership; the group is overbroad and fails to provide an adequate benchmark for determining group membership. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518-19. The circumstances of each member of the proposed group would manifest a variety of demographics, reasons for being in Mexico, duration of time living in the United States, and acculturation to Mexican society. The parameters of group membership, which are indeterminate and involve subjective judgments, do not permit members and non-members of the group to be discerned easily. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 521-22. Gonzalez-Roman fails to show that the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA regarding his eligibility for relief based on his membership in a particular social group. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. The petition for review is DENIED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?